Notable Quotable:

Notable Quotable:

Remember, folks: whenever a woman says "die for me because you are a man," just look her in the eye and say "my body, my choice."

TCM

Monday, September 3, 2012

Anonymous Letter

Two notes about this post:
1. I don't presume to speak for my son, but he's no dummy.
2. This was supposed to be short enough to print several copies, so I could "drop" a few in strategic locations around a nearby college campus. But you know me! Some days I just can't shut up. My husband thanks you in advance for your sympathy.

A few years from now, you’re probably going to want to marry
my son. Perhaps you already do; he’s
kind of hot and his potential is quite obvious, if I do say so myself. He’s only 20, handsome and well-built, and
when he lets his hair grow long, it’s thick and wavy. He has his father’s beautiful eyes, and my
dimples look much better on him than they ever did on me. He’s also a U.S. Marine; he has finished his
deployment and doesn’t expect to go overseas again, so he’s preparing to begin earning
college credits. I don’t hover, so I’m not sure which major he’s
chosen – engineering or actuarial science. He surfs, rides a motorcycle and a mountain bike,
hikes, and maintains a classic car. Pretty
much everybody likes him or loves him, and respects him. Girls hit on him regularly.

I’ll be surprised if he ever marries though. You see, his plan is to wait until he’s at
least thirty, therefore he will spend the next decade meeting, dating, working
with, and probably sleeping with, the product of 60 years of American feminism. I’m pretty sure he won’t find many women worth
considering for marriage. How about we
look at it from his perspective, m’kay? Here’s
what he sees:

Half of you have been raised without your fathers, yet only
a few of your fathers deserved to be kicked out of your lives; you were raised
by the women who kicked your fathers out, and perhaps a string of stepdads and “uncles.” And those women, your mothers, taught you
their values by example. Not an auspicious
start. Most of the rest of you were
raised by fathers who knew damn well that if they displeased your mothers, they
too could bekicked out of your lives
according to your mothers’ whims. They knew
full well who had the REAL power in the family; they quietly accepted that “mother
knows best.”

You were raised in a culture that permits, even encourages,
women and girls to always push for more.
Not necessarily to do more or earn more, but to demand more and to
expect more. You were punished far less
severely for your transgressions than were your male peers. Indeed your female peers egged you on to be even
naughtier, and to be defiant about
it. It’s Grrrl Power, after all! The boys of your acquaintance were expected
to give in to your shenanigans and your shit tests, and those who didn’t were
labeled “problem children” and medicated.
A boy’s best bet was to shut up and grovel, and maybe win your approval. They sure weren’t allowed to go around
offending the Special Snowflakes now, were they?

You were raised in a Disney Princess Culture, where every
girl is entitled to her Prince Charming.
And if she can’t find one, she has the Grrrl Power to kiss any old frog
and transform him into a Prince. You
were raised to be a slut, at least through your twenties. Go to College. Establish a Career. Don’t get married until your late twenties or
early thirties, but DO NOT, under any circumstances, repress your sexuality. Your foremothers fought hard for your right
to be promiscuous with no consequences; don’t
you dare let their efforts go to waste. And
since you’re not looking for a husband, there’s no need to sleep with only “good” men, is there? ‘Cuz badboyz are hawt! And nice guys are boring. Additionally, you have plenty of time to ride
the best cocks you can find; thanks to modern medicine, you can get pregnant
after menopause if you want, so there’s no hurry. You are expected to waste your youth and your
beauty on hot guys who treat you like shit, then give your leftovers to the guy
you’ll promise to love, honor and cherish for the rest of your life. Wow, how lucky is he!

My son looks around and he sees bitchy, arrogant, malicious
women. He sees spoiled greedy women. He sees financially irresponsible women. He sees lazy undisciplined women. (Yes, even in the military; they had to lower
the standards so more women could “serve.”)
He sees overweight women wearing unflattering clothes that display
muffin tops and rolls of fat, who drool over his biceps while telling him that “looks
aren’t important.” He sees slutty women
who dress to attract men, sleep with the “hot” ones, and denigrate the rest by
calling them “creepy.” He sees “competitive”
professional women, whose primary tool for getting ahead is the threat of
sexual harassment lawsuits. He sees demanding women who expect men to bow and
scrape for the privilege of a smile. He
sees utterly irrational women whose “self-esteem ” is obscenely disproportionate
to their proven worth. He sees women who
expect romantic dates and expensive gifts, yet have absolutely nothing of value
to contribute to a relationship. He sees
women who flirt with their hopeful, geeky JustFriends, barely enough to keep
them on a string while simultaneously panting after Alpha Hotties, then run
crying back to those JustFriends after being pumped and dumped by said Hotties,
“Oh, why can’t more men be nice like you?”
(Answer: if they were, no woman would fuck them.)

Look around you ladies.
You see the very same women, don’t you?
Most of you are these
women. You think this is normal and
acceptable, because “everybody does it.”
It’s not.

There’s something you should know about my son and his
peers. They’re not gay, they’re not lazy,
they’re not stupid, they’re not unambitious, and they’re not weak. They’ve merely
figured you out. They know you don’t give
a rat’s ass about them, and you see them as nothing but providers and fantasy sex
objects. They are wise to the game and
they’re done playing by your rules.

They have the same job titles as you and they take home the
same pay, but they work longer hours and they do harder work; they know that
their productivity is why employers can afford to hire you to sit at a desk and
shuffle papers. They know that if two
drunken people have sex and both regret it in the morning, only one of them is
a “rapist.” They know that “My Body/My
Choice” actually means"My Body/My Choice/Your Wallet." They know that the minute they sign a
marriage license, everything they own is yours, but nothing you own is theirs
(except your debts) and you can walk away with cash and prizes, at any time,
for any reason. Or for no reason at all.

They’re calling Bullshit.

A few years from now, you’ll begin asking yourself, “Where have
all the good men gone?” You’ll look down your noses at all those guys
playing video games and living like frat boys in cheap apartments, and you’ll know
that they could do “so much better” for themselves. You’ll shake your heads in wonder at their
“immaturity,” or their “wasted potential.”
Here’s a little secret. (Yep. A few men are
immature and weak – they’ve had the masculinity abused or medicated out of
them by their single mothers and grandmothers) but most of them?

They no longer give a
rat’s ass about YOU.

That’s right. They
don’t need to work hard and earn a good living.
They have no intention of fathering and supporting any children, and no
desire whatsoever earn your approval. You
go buy your own four bedroom colonial in just the right subdivision! That’s what Grrrl Power is for, isn’t
it? Many of these men will go so far as
to quit their jobs as soon as they begin to “earn a good living.” They don’t want to earn enough money to pay
taxes. They don’t want to pay the
salaries of millions of useless (and mostly female) government employees, and
they don’t want to pay for the personal choices of “Empowered Women.” They
refuse to feed your Beast. And you, and
your church, and your government can’t cajole them or shame them into giving a
shit. Men are dropping out, Ladies. Chivalry has died of blunt force trauma, in a
beatdown administered by Grrrl Power. Your
mothers, your grandmothers, your schools, your family courts, your sociology
professors, have all spent the last two generations telling men that they are
unnecessary and unwelcome. And now they’re
leaving. (Oh sure, they’ll be glad to fuck
you while you’re young and hot, aaaand then they’ll move on to younger and hotter
sluts.)

This is the gift that feminism has given to you –
Independence. Scary, lonely, bitter,
potentially impoverished Independence.
For yourselves and for any children you may have. Most of you won’t blame feminism though;
you’ll blame Male Privilege (which doesn’t exist.) You’ll blame The Patriarchy (which always
gave women a far better deal than it gave men.)
You will stamp your feet, flip your hair, and blame anything except the single cultural force that has devoted itself
to suppressing and controlling masculinity.
And you’ll go home alone every night to your cats, your Facebook
Friends, and your vibrator. I sure hope
that’s what you want.

Wow I am completely amazed by your letter. I am not a feminist by any means. I have had a job since I was fourteen and worked my entire way through college. It is unfair that you are generalizing women and placing a stigma on the feminist movement. After all, without feminists we wouldn't be voting or allowed any job a man can do. Are there bad seeds in the bunch? Of course but you could say that about any organization, ethnicity, religious group, etc... why can your son sleep around for the next ten years, but the woman who does that is a slut? With statements like that you are supporting the double standard and contributing to the problem.

Anon, you didn't read it very carefully, did you? I didn't say it was OK for him to sleep around; I said it might happen. I have also stated in comments since then, that sleeping around hurts a woman's ability to commit to marriage far more than it hurts a man's.

Feminists did a few worthwhile things decades ago. However if you think feminism is still a positive influence in the modern world, I suggest you look at where its leaders are spending their money.

There is nothing "unfair" about what I have said; you just don't want to hear it. Your complaint doesn't even qualify as an argument. Grow up.

Here are some nicely documented generalizations and assumptions for you; remember to view them with the knowledge that women file for the majority of divorces - that means the majority of the formerly-promiscuous divorced males, did not CHOOSE divorce. They would still be married if they had their preference.

I notice that all three of your links reference the same data set (National Survey of Family Growth 1995 cycle).

- one study/analysis of that study does not prove a conclusion. It's merely interesting, and encourages further research.

- I have doubts about the agenda of a social researcher who says things like "This sort of stuff offends people, especially the "tolerant" liberal types."

- as someone pointed out in the comments, "there are over 3,000 variables in the 2002 female data file alone." I'm not saying that multiple sexual partners deos *not* affect ability to commit to marriage - I'm saying that it's far from proven, as you seem to be implying. What other variables potentially affect commitment?

"Perhaps you could cite a few stats and (fact based) studies that contradict my "generalizations and assumptions." You know, to discredit me with actual facts, instead of with ill-informed opinions."

That's not how it works. You make an assertion, and then *you* provide evidence to support your theory.

Are you familiar with the bio-mechanics of pair bonding? The female's ability to pair bond, has been shown to diminish after very few sex partners, so a woman who is not deeply bonded to her husband (partner # 5, 8, 12 or 30) is not likely to stay married to him when she gets bored with him, is she? Not to mention the financial incentives and utter lack of social consequences for destroying her family. Combine that with the statistical results (which are probably inaccurate due to UNDERREPORTING*)and the evidence is all but conclusive. But of course, NAWALT, for the Special Snowflakes.

There are quite a few emotion-based objections to this post in these comments; most of them come from women, and most of them attempt to discredit my premises by nit picking over one or two statements, like the one you chose. I'm amazed at the number of women who feel compelled to comment on a stranger's blog, unable to accept the idea that women's brains function differently than men's brains, causing different outcomes for similar behaviors. That is one of the biggest and most treasured lies of feminism - that the only remarkable differences between the sexes, are physical. Modern women bust their asses to behave just like men, and fail miserably, but they have forgotten how to behave like women. It's as if women are ashamed of their sex, and compensate with masculine behaviors.

What a waste of potential femininity.

*Very strangely, STD statistics strongly suggest that women have MORE sex partners than they report.

If I chose to address *all* of the statements that were questionable in your post, it would be excessively long, and not suitable for a reply/comment.

"So once again, feel free to contradict me, with SOMETHING besides, 'I don't like/approve of/agree with what you said.'"

Putting quotes around something I didn't say is misleading at best.

I asked you for evidence that supports your assertions. You gave me a very weak response, and went so far as to make *more* assertions that aren't backed up. "female's ability to pair bond, has been shown to diminish after very few sex partners"

You also created a massive strawman with your statement of "I'm amazed...blah blah blah... are physical." I made no such assertions in either of my comments.

I don't think that your response is particularly male or female in its presentation, though it IS breathtakingly obtuse and narrow-minded. It's your blog, though, and you can present whatever foolishness you like.

I have read hundreds of documents over the last two years, and I haven't kept track of them. I'm not going to look them up to satisfy your demands.

I compliment you on your skills as an anonymous troll; you did a decent job of pretending to be "academically" curious, telling me that it's not your job to prove or disprove anything. Then you slipped up and called it "nonsense." If you have anything remotely resembling evidence of your "opinion," do feel free to share it. Unless you have a substantive debate to offer, you are merely a troll, and unwelcome. Therefore I'll be surprised if I hear from you again. Have a nice (insular, deluded) life.

Too deep thinking for me. I did care about most of the girl and women in my life. If the put-out, great. If not, I didn't care about the reason. Just went on to the next one. I didn't owe them any explications like, "It's me, not you." I admire him and you for your toughs and insights, but to me it's too much to worry about if all I'm wanting is sex.

So why is it ok for your son and coffeypot to be "sluts" (your word you judgmental hypocrite, not mine) but if I dare assert the fact that I'm a 100% human too, it somehow destroys your precious, clearly delicate little universe? Man I can't wait till you and your kind die out. Almost there! :)

Aw.. How cute! A FemTroll! Here's the thing, sweetie: I didn't say it was "OK," did I? I simply said he doesn't want to marry a domineering slut. And judging by the thousands of pageviews on my normally 100-200 hits-per-week blog, quite a few other men feel the same way. And that number is growing. You can take it or leave it.

Here's a little tip that your parents may have neglected to tell you: You don't have to like it, but you have to live with it(or in this case, without it) and your entitled little hissy-fits aren't going to change anything; they're just going to make you even MORE unpleasant to be around.

Here's the bottom line:Women depend on men for their wealth. Primary breadwinner, child support, alimony and/or half of the assets he paid for, tax dollars that support single moms and all women through affirmative action, subsidized housing/food/utilities/spending money/cell phones...Men have been footing the bill because men are willing to work harder than women.

NO MORE.

They're dropping out by the millions, and taking their earning potential with them, because you know what men depend on women for? Sex. Period. Yeah, they used to to depend on women to provide them with children, and love, and comfortable home life, but you dumb feminists said, "NO MORE." Women, not men, broke the social contract.

So yes, they will gladly avail themselves of the sex YOU SO WILLINGLY OFFER, but they're not overpaying for it anymore; they'll only be paying what you're worth.

You can stamp your feet and flip your hair all you want, but if you want a quality man, you'd better figure out how to be a quality woman. And not "quality" as defined by feminists, "quality" as defined by the men who will no longer accept less than they are worth. My "hypocrisy" has nothing to do with it. I'm telling you what IS, not what some dipshit Disney Princess thinks SHOULD BE.

I have to agree. Women have done immeasurable harm to themselves and to men and to their children. In their quest to be equal or like men, they have messed things up seriously, and most women do not even know it. And yet, I know of young ladies waiting on young men who will not fall prey to the ways of the worldly woman. Those men seem few and far between.

If those young women are "Daughters if the King," they might be worse than worldly women. Evangelical American Princesses aren't sluts; they make "mistakes," and then become "pure" again. And again, and again. They also tend to ignore that "perfect husband" God promises, if he doesn't look like Edward or Jacob. When they eventually marry him anyway (after a few "mistakes") they don't feel that they should have to "submit" to a husband who won't "lead" them the way they want to be led. And Pastor Mangina, knowing that the EAP has veto power over which church the family attend$$$$, chimes in and says, "Man Up, you slacker, and lead her where she wants to go!"

The church is a feminized as the rest of society. Good Christian Girls, are rarely good or Christian.

Yes, they are. There are non-EAP Christian girls out there, but not many. I actually know one or two myself! Smart girls are figuring it out, and smart men will find them. WhiteKnightism is deeply ingrained; a LOT more guys are going to have to learn the hard way. And The nice girls are probably going to get THEIR leftovers.

Hilarious. And exactly how the world looks to a 27 year old in Chicago. I probably don't get the women your son does (don't have the looks or really care enough to play their time sink games), but definitely on the same page as the tone of this post. If a woman seems worth it, I might call her back. If not, I don't even bother calling numbers I get at bars. Occasionally I'll pursue some social circle women.Otherwise, my time with them is done at the end of the night.

If I don't fall into their "It just happened" fantasies of one night stands and they're not quality women, they're not worth my time, energy, or money.

Spot on. It is nice to know that there are others out there that prefer to raise children with traditional values. My 18-year old daughter has spent her first few weeks of college appalled at the behavior of former high school chums that are diving headlong into their drunken 'slut phase'.

This is a bit late isn't it? Not in the sense that civilized society is about to tip into the abyss and nothing can stop it, but too late because those paper shuffling jobs you mention, which add no value, are going and they are never coming back. This will change the rules of the game quite a bit.

This is a very good parody of a small subsection of reality. In New York, this would not play well, though it would be appropriate.

However, I reject many of the notions here. I was, after all, raised by my mother. As were my brother and 4 sisters. He left her.

My sisters are independent, they are aggressive. They are successful. One is married and has children, the other has decided marriage was not for her. The other two struggled through marriages with aggressive, dangerous men until they found the strength to throw them out.

My son is growing up and finding that the girls around him are immature. He's a great looking kid, though I wish he'd spend more time cracking the books. He's intelligent, but he's also well-spoken and gets pretty far with his BS. I tell him it will only get him so far in life. He'll learn.

Meanwhile, he's dated more girls than I did at his age (which was easy, I only dated one). But he's just not interested in the girls. They aren't pushy, they aren't feminists, and they aren't even sleeping around (some are, but he doesn't hang out with them). He just finds them to be annoying. That's changing now that he's in college - as I suspected it would. He's having meaningful conversations and learning girls have useful opinions.

But he's also learned, from watching my marriage, that women HATE BEING WRONG and are often vindictive, malicious, and nasty when they realize they are. I've learned to shut my mouth when I have something to say, because I will be told I'm a know-it-all and sanctimonious, and "How can you ever understand a woman's position?" Honestly?I can. I lived with 4 girls growing up, and my mom taught me how to pay attention to their needs. But the reality is some women's needs don't need to be attended to. They are fake, presented to men as a need when they are a simply a temporary want.

Bad marriage? No. Just simply pointing out that the problem isn't society. It's women in general, as opposed to men. We think differently.

I think practically, and put my emotions on the back burner. Women think emotionally and try to shoehorn practicality in....it doesn't work.

So my son will keep looking, too. I doubt he'll find a woman as practical as he is. I know I didn't. But maybe we're not supposed to...and we're supposed to make concessions in life to make things work?

That's what I was taught. That's what I do. It doesn't make me weak. It makes me smart. I do what needs to be done, and still get mine.

"Just simply pointing out that the problem isn't society. It's women in general, as opposed to men. We think differently."

This is at the root of the issue. Society, under the influence of feminism, has made it easy for women to demand that our wants be treated as needs. It has made attractive, the option to be irresponsible, by removing many of the consequences. Women of good character exist, but we are constantly being encouraged to do whatever we want while allowing someone to pay the price.

What I remember from my college days is that I was bypassed for the sluttier more outgoing girls on campus. I was tall, beautiful, and smart...but reserved and somewhat shy. These are the girls that don't get noticed and don't get asked out. I also was going to church and saw no single young men there either.

What I found was in my mid-20s is that I got hit on by older men who recognized that I had been passed by and were amazed I was still unhitched. So, make sure you tell your son to look beyond the flashy sluts and look for the quieter, reserved girl who may try to dress nicely, but might not have it altogether in the fashion/make-up department. Those are the girls worth pursuing...and there are plenty of them out there.

I find this hard to believe. Every church I ever attended, was overflowing with lonely single guys who couldn't get a date (myself included... saved at 19, I was unwillingly single til 38).

Girls were in short supply, usually, and even when they weren't, they were so hypergamist that they literally didn't seem to notice us. They'd turn guys down for dates, then turn right around and complain that there were "no men".

PS..... to the extent that there is an "excess" of women, they are divorced mothers.

Even setting aside the question of whether they are biblically free to remarry, most of these girls wanted to marry a lonely 30+ single beta provider.... to take care of the kids they already had. They did NOT want to have kids with HIM, they were "done".

I didn't take that deal. I didn't knock myself out professionally, to finance some lawless Alpha spawn, I wanted my OWN kids.

No doubt you've noticed that the objections to this letter are primarily coming from people who have "good" reasons to NOT want it to reflect reality. Because, you know, NAWALT, and men are naughty too...

Anon, I'm going to take your comment at face value - namely, that you are and were beautiful and smart, but passed over for slutty girls. But you're missing a key point. Allow me to enlighten you.

An outside observer does not instantly recognize what a perfect and special snowflake you are. He knows only that you are an unknown quantity. I've dated enough smart, beautiful nice girls (and observed others in their own relationships) to know that most of them are somewhat less perfect than advertised. Some are "reformed" sluts (who, of course, "don't do THAT anymore"). Some are bipolar wolves in sheep's clothing, psycho girlfriends waiting to happen. Most are self-absorbed future human resources employees - because, while a smart girl is much better than a dumb girl, smart girls are much more susceptible to feminist claptrap, and a dumb girl is infinitely preferable to a feminist. Some are just way more effort than they are worth. All of them are certain that they are none of these things - that's those OTHER girls, of course!

Sluts are a known quantity. Easy lay, and they don't make a fuss when you leave afterward. The only thing you have to fear is the clap.

Perhaps marriage will illustrate it for you. The overwhelming majority of men don't stand at the altar and think, "Yeah, this is going to end horribly, but I'll sign over my nuts on a platter anyway." Most think that the girl they're marrying is special, different, better. And yet 50% of marriages end in divorce, most often initiated by women. Of those that remain intact, in how many is the man just submitting to his wife's whims? How many are unhappy marriages? And in every case, the man knows that even a happy marriage can end in his personal ruin at her whim.

Are you still in the outside observer's shoes? Keep looking, because there is far too much data int he world for a person to survive without generalizing. Feminism has poisoned the well, and the visible majority of women ARE "that way." Feminism has put the burden on YOU to show that you're the exception; you cannot expect others to instantly see what a snowflake you are. As a man, I have neither the time, the ability, or the patience to treat every girl as though she were the exception and not the rule.

Oddly enough, having the burden to prove to romantic prospects you're a cut above the rest is kind of like being a man. Ain't equality grand?

To sum up: if everything you say is objectively true, you were passed over because the average man does not benefit from taking risks with unknown quantities. Shy or not, you're the one who has to prove you're different.

Really? Jumping on one poorly worded phrase from an otherwise clear and unambiguous comment? That's the best you can do? You're a Manboobz reader, aren't you? Next you'll be telling the world that a single contradictory sentence from a commenter, defines my entire two-year-old blog, won't you?

YOU do this, YOU do that, it's all on YOU. What exactly is it that the menfolk are going to be doing that would make me in any way inclined toward all this one-sided work? And pay for my meals?! Yegads that sounds like something those mean vagina-dentata feminazis would do! Oh the horror!

Anonymous, you don't have to do any of those things to attract a man who can support your lifestyle and your children. And if you don't, You WON"T attract such a man. He'll be poolside.

Of course if you don't NEED a man to support you, that must be because you have useful earning skills. And I don't mean HR or PR; I mean your work has REAL value and you can support yourself without feminist-mandated hiring quotas and artificially inflated wages. Right?

Pardon my confusion. I'm unsuccessfully trying to bridge the yawning gap between these two statements:

You see, his plan is to wait until he’s at least thirty, therefore he will spend the next decade meeting, dating, working with, and probably sleeping with, the product of 60 years of American feminism. I’m pretty sure he won’t find many women worth considering for marriage.

So your son's plan is to sleep around with lots of women outside of marriage. Got it. Now to the ladies:

You were raised to be a slut, at least through your twenties. Go to College. Establish a Career. Don’t get married until your late twenties or early thirties, but DO NOT, under any circumstances, repress your sexuality.

So when your son sleeps around with women he has no intention of marrying, it's smart and moral. But if women do the exact same thing, they're sluts?

As far as I can tell, by your rulebook a person who sleeps around for decades and puts their education and career before marriage and children is virtuous if said person is male, and lower than pond scum if female.

And as for the principle you raise, it's not merely moral, it's biological. Having multiple partners inhibits a female's ability to bond, more that a male's. Premarital sex is more detrimental to women than to men. It damages a woman's ability to be a good wife, more than it damages a man's ability to be a good husband. It's a double standard programmed by nature, and immune to the effects of social engineering. Feel free to deny it, but you can't change it.

You don't have to take my word for any of this. Most of the readers who object to this post are women. It is striking quite a chord with men, though. I seem to be articulating what a lot of them have seen but not "noted." I suspect a LOT of women don't really want young men to notice. It might lead to more men rejecting the status quo. If they reject the status quo, they won't Man Up and marry those galls when said gals are ready to "settle down." Heaven forbid American males stop accepting what feminist society offers them!

Lots of things in life are "biological". The purpose of morality is to allow us to be more than animals.

And objections don't derive their merit from the source (This argument is bad when a man makes it, but good when a woman makes it - or vice versa). If you can't address an argument on the merits, but instead have to resort to the ad hominem, you're ducking the argument rather than refuting it.

The fact of the matter is that it's up to your son to exercise a little quality control over the women in his life. If he's sleeping with "sluts", that's his poor judgment.

If he's using the excuse that there are bad women out there (because we KNOW there are NEVER bad men!) to justify "pumping and dumping" - that lovely, evocative phrase! young women who are decent, I'd have to point out that responsible adults don't engage in relative morality. They understand that actions are either virtuous in their own right or they aren't. You don't get a pass b/c you have testicles or a uterus. By the way, feminists want the world to give them a pass b/c they have ladyparts... and you seem to want men to get a pass b/c they have manparts.

Not an impressive argument. You haven't answered the argument yet: why is it morally acceptable for your son to sleep with women he has no intention of marrying, but immoral for young women to do the same?

Answer: it's not moral for him to do so. Biology is profoundly amoral, and the fact that you introduce it as an excuse for ignoring mankind's ability to reason and live up to a higher standard than "hormones" is more telling than any counterargument I could make.

This post is not about "morals." It's about the real-life consequences of behaviors.

I know nothing of my son's sexual history, and as I stated, I don't speak for him personally.

The morality of multiple sex partners is not the issue here in the real world. The issue in the real world is the consequences of the behaviors. I'm not going to be distracted from that by a philosophical or religious discussion about morality. (...and while biology itself is amoral, our biological imperatives do certainly influence our morals...) There's quite a bit of that over at Dalrock's blog; it's very good, but it's not the topic of this article.

This article is about how feminism has turned women into feral predators and scavengers, by obliterating their sense of obligation to anything but themselves, and rewarding them for sociopathic behavior.

This article is also a warning of the backlash that is coming - from a number of different directions:

First, our economy can no longer sustain the transfer of wealth from productive males to unproductive females. Not only are there fewer opportunities for productive males, there are fewer males who want their productivity abused.

Second, here's a secret about promiscuous males - 20% of the men are having sex with 80% of the women. Most men don't even have the opportunity to sleep around; they finally get some sex in their 30's when they're economically stable enough for the Grrrlz to "settle for" them, after riding the cock carousel. It is a MINORITY of men who are pumping and dumping, ***and whether or not my son is attractive enough to even have the opportunity to engage in such behavior, is totally irrelevant to the phenomenon.***

Third, legal activism. See A Voice for Men and Fathers and Families.

So no, I'm not going to argue with you about morality. I'm not condoning or condemning anyone's morals. I'm discussing the consequences of their actions.

Great article and above we see the carefully rationalized response of "It's Not FAIR".

As you point out, yup, it's not fair. It's not fair that girls can sleep with multiple Alpha guys and most guys get to sleep with one or two ex-carousel riders (if they're lucky). Tough, but guys accept life is not fair. "It's Not FAIR" is irrelevant. So are perceived double standards. It takes skill to persuade a woman to say yes. It takes NO SKILL AT ALL TO SAY YES.

I'll argue about morality, though. Modern morality is the ex post facto rationalization of the Official Churchian League of Mutterings to Men not Manning-Up and Marrying those Sluts.

Girls sleeping with multiple guys with Hanna Rosin, Amanda Marcotte and all the legion of Rad Fem sisters cheering them on has created an Alpha's paradise and the downfall of everyone else. Feminism demanded this and Feminism got it. Alpha guys are "exercising poor judgement" for taking advantage? The HELL they are. Feminism re-introduced biology red in tooth and claw; Alpha's (and their game impersonators) responded in kind.

All of this was inevitable as soon as generations of young women demanded the right to behave like Alpha guys, but refused to accept the consequences. "Mother of Two's" morality is a specious attempt to make those Alpha guys hold back and refuse to accept what's been offered on a plate. Do you really think they don't see through that? Do you really believe they can't see through the hypocrisy of the modern Churchian cant? Do you really believe those poor beta's will keep picking up the tab ad infinitum for those born again sluts?

This is an excellent piece of work and reminded me of why I don't allow my conservative friends to go too far astray in blaming these challenges on communists, devils, and Hollywood trash. America has for some time been showing all the symptoms typical of human nature when its material needs have been met, and its spiritual needs neglected -- for too long a stretch. Addison and Steele made a great deal of raucous fun of the morals of their time and how easy it was to twit the other man's shortcomings while deciding in favor of one's own morals -- regardless of their many blemishes, so obvious to others.

This column of yours, however, is one more reminder that we face a generation of tears from having lived so long amidst superfluities as 'principle.' The reckoning will be brutal, and savage, yet I am assured that Americans of good will will acknowledge the errors of their ways and return to a heightened sense of responsibility, both personal and social.

Sorry, I accidentally deleted a comment that began with, "Somebody needs to call 'bullshit' on you, mom." The rest of the comment was a variation on NAWALT, (Not All Women Are Like That) indicating a (false) presumption that most fatherless children are fatherless because their dads "walked out." This is a good time for me to reiterate that over 80% of divorces are initiated by women; don't even try to tell me that over 80% of divorced men are abusers, cheaters, addicts or even "immature."

My guess is that "Anonymous" is a woman, instinctively circling the wagons around The Sisters, leaving blame (for everything) to fall guess where? ON MEN!!! Who's surprised?

While thinking of this, are there any colleges in the USA where this kind of behaviour is not rampant? I know it happens here, (less so on STEM, because the workload is high) but given the lack of quality in most US colleges, is it not time to boycott most of them and go online or to the few that still have standards?

I have five sons, four grown, and have a lot of experience watching the females they have known. I have also known young people well where I work, both the staff and the patients.

I don't recognise the females or families you are talking about. You haven't the faintest idea. You believe what you read, apparently, and a select version at that. You can find examples of just about anything if you try hard enough, so by virtue of confirmation bias you can keep proving yourself right over and over. But that doesn't change a thing. You are making up an opposition and writing their lines for them, so you can win every argument.

Really? Where have YOU been for the last 50 years? The American family is a shadow of its former self. Close to 50% of children are now raised without their fathers. Since the advent of no-fault divorce, women now file over 80% of divorces, with and without "cause." Is that what you call a bias? Do you suppose that feminists gaining control over the entire family courts system, has had no effect whatsoever on the state of the family?

Oh, I see where you've been - you're a social worker! Of course you "don't recognize" these families; you can't afford to! This very system is your bread and butter! You are PAID to perpetuate the women-can-do-no-wrong/women-as-victims myth.

You definitely live up to your name, Mr. Our-Tax-Dollars-At-Work, but you have no credibility here. Most of the idiots are elsewhere.

I was a social worker at the age of 20. While I was taking care of handicapped children, I watched their parents go off and get stoned, layed and all the like. Even my middle aged liberal arts bosses would go to the bar and gossip about the patients. I was mortified and I QUIT. Better to watch the world burn than leap in and get burned along with it.

The sickest thing for me was that I was contantly recieving surpise visits from these bosses to make sure I wasn't being naughty with the kids. Guess why? Because I have a third leg that's why.

Interesting. You recognize non-rational discrimination against yourself, but you don't see the connection between feral, out-of-control, "empowered" women, and the ludicrous assumptions on which such discrimination is based. (Maleness and male sexuality is inherently dangerous, but femaleness and female sexuality is inherently awesome.)

The natural flip side of irrational self-aggrandizement, is preemptive demonization of anyone who might undermine your presumptions of superiority. That's what feminism has been doing for the last 5 decades, and the result is a population full of amoral, narcissistic females. If you can't see them, your eyes are closed.

You have the gall to to be "sickened" by the fact that the Social Services Industry makes hideously unfounded negative assumptions about a Good Man Like You, yet you haven't even NOTICED that countless jobs exist in that industry precisely because it makes hideously unfounded negative assumptions about millions of other men, EVERY SINGLE DAY?????

So...what? You think you're the special snowflake? It's just stupid when child welfare "advocates" think YOU might be a danger to children, but it's perfectly OK for them think that (millions of) Some Other Guy(s) are probably dangerous to children?

That was one of the most beautiful things i have ever read, you are amazing. I am 26, Athletic and currently have a little business of my own...the last thing i need is some slut to take everything i worked for my whole life. Thank you

Thank you for that post. It's very well written, and you describe the behavior of the majority of women, and the rational reaction of men, very clearly. Speaking as a single young woman, all I have to add is... not ALL of us are that way! Just, you know... most of us. And you're right. It can't last. Something's going to break down somewhere.

My mother is an excellent role model in treating men respectfully, my father is an excellent role model for how men should act to deserve and keep that respect, and I have a very supportive church that teaches the importance of the family. So I didn't really withstand the conditioning, it's just that I was conditioned from a young age to be an adult when I grew up - or, in old fashioned terms, to be a lady, not a girl.

Welcome, gentlemen from MGTOW forums. Yes I'm a woman and I wrote this. I've been "accused" my whole life of "thinking like a man," but I no longer accept the implication that it might be a character flaw. Druid V, I've had a number of exchanges with you on other sites...

(Ironically, I was hesitant to publish such an in-your-face piece, and THREE times I composed an email to another blogger - I was going to ask him to publish it as an anonymous guest post!)

I love you. I'm sorry, but frankly that's all I could think of as the first thing that came to mind, thank you. For another woman to say this, it is almost unthinkable. Especially in Washington DC, where some of the most self-entitled, princess syndrome girls on the face of the earth live. Sometimes I go out to bars/clubs at night, and I envision them all with little tiaras on their heads, its disgusting. My whole facebook feed is constantly filled with disgusting self-absorbed posts from chicks who think they're worth the world, and some guy should just be so luck to be graced by their presence. I've considered moving away just to find better potential. I, like your son, don't need anything from a girl... master's degree, awesome job, money, cars, motorcycles, travelling, sports, friends... I literally want nothing from a girl but to share experiences and enjoy life with somebody worth caring about. Sadly, that same sentiment does not exist here from the other side of the equation. And slowly with each passing year, the facebook feed turns from deserving to hopelessly desperate, and they just don't get it. Sad really.

I go to bars. Really? You go to places where the business model is to have the customers fill themselves with alcohol and you witness females acting in unflattering ways. Let me ask you this. When you last volunteered at a soup kitchen or volunteered at a mentoring program for at risk kids or volunteered at any non-profit event where people volunteer to give back, did the females you met there behave like the females you met at the bar?

Wowsa! This is some bubbling rage that is almost beautiful in it's undiluted primeval seething. This is a real Mama Grizzly talking, not that fake-ass Sarah Palin stuff.

Just curious, have you or will you show this to your son?

Your son sounds like he would do very well taking a few years to work in North Dakota in the oil patch; hard work for sure but the pay is great for those who don't piss it away. He'd make enough to pay for college, start his own business, or do whatever.

Big Plus: almost NO women working in the oil industry. The guys mainly live in "man camps" and barely see any females. Local women stay away (NoDakers tend to be sensible people anyway).

I did email it to him, but I don't know if he's read it yet. The GI Bill should cover his tuition, and I'm encouraging him to CLEP every class he can. I could easily picture him in the oil fields for a few years - he loves the nearby wilderness!

It is EXTREMELY difficult to find housing as they have not been able to keep up, but it is something he might want to think about. If I were a young(ish) man, I'd be out there in a flash, work my ass off and make some serious bank. They tend to work 12-hour shifts in two week increments, have two weeks off — that kind of schedule. The toughest jobs are the riggers, but there's plenty of other opportunities connected to the oil industry and there are colleges out there, altho certainly not your Ivy League-ish, SWPL type.

If you google Bakken jobs, Williston oil, man camps, you'll find lots of info, articles; it's not all rosy — it's like the wild west atmosphere almost; increased crime, congestion, lack of infrastructure, but a chance to make a lot of money in just a few years and that's not a bad way to start out in life.

I too was a Marine once. The chicks in the Corps are some of the most amazing sluts you can imagine. Most all of them. They are also the least good-looking ones. As far as banging sluts and pump and dump, this kind of contributes to the problem ( I did it too before I realized civilization is more important than my cock ). At this point all that will work is the revocation of civil rights until a new arraingement can be worked out (without women's input) and then a new society can be formed with explicit, not implicit, rules and functions. Whatevet it is, "women's rights" will be finished in toto.

Nice work. Although given Vox Day's recent post I don't know how many women will actually listen...

Aside from being in shape and not being combative, probably the best thing a young woman can do to be marriage material today is to make an effort to genuinely empathize with men and the legal and cultural situation that faces them. I was with a woman who didn't, who every time I brought up the rational concerns of men hit back with a "men do it worse!! women are victims!!" I dumped her, significantly because of that.

That's true. I remember a date I had about a year back; the girl brought up politics partway through. Apparently the mutual friend who introduced us thought that would be a good suggestion.

When it got to feminism and gender issues, I pointed out that 60% of college grads are female, and somehow this is "equality." She responded by saying, "Well, men just don't want to go to college."

I could have pointed out that men said the same thing about women 100 years ago, or that her response didn't actually address the point of my statement, or that she is simply incorrect and I can find the statistics to prove it. But what's the point? Regardless of the substance of her answer, that and other statements made it clear where she stood. There was no second date.

Thank you for so clearly articulating something that has only been on the periphery of my conscious thought, but a controlling influence in my dealings with eligible women. I don't know what the answer is, but I've never seen the problem laid out so plainly ... and in such a creative format! I will look for more wisdom from you in the future.

I think you must have had some perceived problems with the women your son has dated, or maybe you have difficulty letting go of your less than perfect son, regardless of how you see him. Women are not bitches or sluts and men are not perfect catches. I am sorry you feel that way and that you have most likely taught him to feel that way. You might be surprised at how similar people really are, male or female,. And at that age, they all have some growing up to do.

Susan, Your rationalization hamster is well-bred and exquisitely groomed and maintained. I'll translate what you said into what you (probably) don't even know you're thinking:

I, susan c. Am {and/or:} intelligent/observant/fair/saved-by-my-personal-boyfriend-Jesus/possessed-of-feminine-intuition, and I don't see it this way. I'm also usually right. Therefore Suz must be WRONG. Gosh I wonder what's wrong with Suz. Suz can't be right so she must be {and/or:} embittered/deluded/paranoid/unable-to-let-go-of-her-son/misogynistic.

Now I, susan c, need to toss out some "valid" objections to prove that I am right. So here goes: NAWALT. Not All Women Are Like That. I, susan c, have never noticed that society, mass media and law have colluded to encourage All Women to BE Like That, so that can't be why SOME Women are Like That.

Also, Men Do It Toooooo! That makes it OK for a few women to do it; fair is fair. I, susan c, have yet to notice that when Men Do It, they are harshly criticized and punished (can you say: "basement dwelling Call Of Duty champion" "underemployed loser," "creep," or conversely, "egotistical heartbreaker," and "absentee dad"?)

I, susan c, have also never noticed that women are praised for It with phrases like, "You Go Grrrl!" and "Independent," and "Empowered," or that women are financially rewarded for it by social welfare and the family courts.

And besides, they're all just kids (and I, susan c, have never noticed that they're feral kids) so if we all just back off and let them grow up, everything will be hunky-dory. Pardon me while I, susan c, shove my head back back into the sand.

Because of my job (office environment) and education, I get the chance to meet a lot of females in their twenties. There is no shortage of disappointment among them. The reason is because there are lots of guys who want a relationship. There are also lots of guys who are smart, talented, and motivated. The two groups have very little overlap....there's plenty of guys who want to be taken care of, and plenty who are capable of taking care of themselves but don't want a moocher.

I will also say this--when I was in my early twenties, beautiful, muscular, and impulsive, I didn't make much effort with the ladies because I didn't have to. Plenty of serviceable and disposable women made themselves available to me. I know many young women who are pretty disappointed with the reality that the "hot" guys don't hit on them because the "hot" guys don't have to hit on anyone, anymore than the "hot" girls do. Of course, my experience with the girls at least, is that the better they look, the worse they are where it counts. And from what I've heard, the knife cuts both ways.

I guess the only difference between you and me is that I don't blame anyone for the current state of affairs. One can either laugh at reality and adjust to it, or suffer it through. Love him or hate him, the Devil's not going to change.

You must be young enough that you don't remember when men were respected and women were respectable. It wasn't like this 40 years ago, and it wouldn't have become like this without feminism. There are other factors, but feminism exacerbates all of them.

Suz, well done! Have you really left a few of these around campus? It's darn good of you if you have. Maybe you'll reach a girl who's new on campus and has the potential to be saved from becoming all this.

Amazing post! People ask why I have never married...I think I have a new article to direct them to tell them why.

Once you start leaving a few copies of your post around campus, could you please do a follow-up post to let us know how it went?

I wonder if the local feminist student groups and the college administration will hold a cooperative 'book burning' - trying to eliminate all copies of your article around the campus? Wouldn't surprise me!

What truly amazes me is the number of single moms who think that some guy is going to want to support them and their 4 kids by 4 different baby daddies!! A good guy will take on a single mom with one or two kids by one father because he only has to deal with one other guy> But if there are two or three fathers involved, the guy is just not interested. Sure, he will sleep with the woman and have fun, but he is NOT going to commit (anymore than a smart woman will commit to a guy with 3 or 4 kids from different women!!!)

Thank you so much for saying this..Its just awesome and as a 46 year old guy thats trying to date again after a bad marriage.. I deal with women like this all the time.. they have nothing substantial to offer and yet want everything handed to them.. Women at my age are so unrealistic and jaded that I dont want anything to do with them

OMG. Just found your sight via Cappy Cap. My son-same but in Navy. This may sound gay but I LOVE YOU. Wish more moms would think this way and not sissy-fy their sons to get along in this feminist world. Glad my son is an Alpha Male. Taught him all women have ulterior motives (me included) and don't believe anything otherwise. Don't believe if they say "I'm on the pill", take responsibility for own actions, be the manly man, etc.

Oh, if your son thinks at all like you do, her certainly gets only very stupid women. I can't even be mad at this post except for the fact that you've added another unfortunate human intellect to our good Earth.

This is a very excellent article, and I've read through every single comment. I'm somewhat similar to your son in the sense of young(ish, 27), athletic, pretty good looking, with a passion for "service" (paramedic/firefighter, joining military). I am also a rather "traditional" male as I grew up in a very small town in the countryside of Southern Alberta (horses, chores, hockey, etc.). I find it quite hard to wrap my head around the mess that is modern society sometimes. I look on in confused bewilderment when I hear people vent that I earn a lot of money as a man.. Even though I sacrifice three quarters of my time away from home, friends, and family in cold, muddy conditions in the oilfield. Finding love and partnership is great, and I feel tripple blessed the more I see the degradation of "the male" that the woman I found is smart, caring, kind, and loves having a strong man for a husband and believes that children should have a mother with them as they grow up. The more I think about trying to change the sad state of affairs though, the more it seems the writing is on the wall. To dissent in any way and even mention "mens rights" is to be marginalized and laughed out of any conversation (with plenty of speculation on penis size and sexual prowess to boot).It is certainly going to be an interesting decade or two as North America both condemns and cries out for "manly" things. Complaints that all things masculine (aggression, confidence, sacrifice, anything testosterone related) are lacking, despite the fact they have been systematically stamped out for generations.It's tough to say what the best course of action is. Most of the time I'm glad I can "check out" of the whole debacle and enjoy life with a partner that isn't delusional and shares more traditional views of the family unit.

My God I wish I had seen this twenty years ago.My hat is off to you lady.That is telling it like it is and not pulling any punches.Good for you, it is the absolute unvarnished truth, every bit of it.I grew up in the 70's when all this really started getting serious and I am here to tell you it threw a wrench into the relationship between men and women that has never recovered.A guy didn't know how to act around girls, try to be nice like opening a door and they would turn around and scream at you that they were capable of doing it themselves.All the traditional role models got turned on their heads.Being a nice guy got you a fuzzy palm in a hurry and I don't blame the younger generations of guys one iota for deciding it's just not worth it.Reap what you sew ladies and I use the term loosely these days.I raised two girls and a boy, not mine, I never had any kids (sound familiar?) and I damned well made sure they didn't turn out like what you described so eloquently.All three turned out to be wonderful and well adjusted adults.

Kudos to you, this article should be required reading for young men as well as the young women but unfortunately the legal system that reinforces this behavior is what really needs to be overhauled.

I write this as someone who hasn't so much as held a woman's hand since 2006, as someone who has just turned 30, and whose father has mentioned that he despairs of ever having any grandchildren...

Madam, I am nothing like your son. I am hairy, stumpy-legged, and my hobbies are largely cerebral. I hate crowds, and my definition of a "crowd" is three or more people I don't know. I have never served in the armed forces. In short, I do not generally need to worry about roving harlotry seeing me as a potential good time.

And yet I can relate to his situation.

Having taken a look around me at the various pickles my cohorts have gotten into, I have made my peace with the fact that nothing is worth it. There is, at present, no reward for putting up with the entire mess that is worth the effort and misery involved.

Wow, Did you over hear me talking in my sleep or lecturing young guys on the “American Woman.” I couldn’t have been more articulate and factual in my delivery of substance providing for this argument. Please, any mother that responds with not my daughter in-law or son’s marriage, I would believe it only if God lives in their home and they follow their scripture, otherwise it’s subject to the “American Whore” doctrine.I am very happy to see wiser older women speak their mind and try to bring this country back to sanity, maybe then we will be again “The Greatest Country in the World” and not the laughing stock in so many first world countries

For most of your response, yeah yeah, I know NAWALT. Look at the stats and pull your head out of your ass.

For this:" 'The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. It is a fight for EQUALITY."

Bull-fukin-shit. (Pardon my French.)

I'l believe that, when NOW demands that the male birth control pill be made available in the US, and that the government pay for it. I'll believe that, when feminists start protesting VAWA, because it ignores violence against men, children, the elderly,the handicapped...and it uses millions of tax dollars to do it. I'll believe that, when millions of women stand up and demand that all affirmative action, in schools and jobs, ends. I'll believe that, when feminists fight to end no-fault divorce, and when feminists demand that the fathers get 95% custody instead of mothers.

Feminists advocate for INequality, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

I AM an intelligent person. I WAS a feminist. I DID expand my horizons. You should try it.**************************My response to yourother article was published a few weeks ago:

Well my definition of feminism, it's not exactly "Bull-fuckin-shit" (no French in there so I won't ask you to pardon it) that is the actual definition of the word. Yes, the word has been misappropriated in many ways. People (not just women) take advantage of the word and apply what they think it means to it.Am I a slut for wanting to be able to have a career or a say in the way our country is governed? Being a feminist doesn't make someone a slut. Being a slut makes someone a slut. I don't condone slutty behavior (from either sex).

I agree that the country is in a poor state, the all around inequality evident, I'm not blind. But women shouldn't be punished for wanting equality, NO ONE SHOULD. We should be equal regardless of sex, gender, race, or religion. I just don't believe in bashing any one party more than any other. If we were all equal we would all be responsible, don't you think? If we were all equal affirmative action wouldn't exist. None of the things you mentioned would because those people who enacted them would have realized that they were discriminatory to others. Our problem isn't women wanting to vote or have careers or lives that they pick for themselves. It's the government holding us in our roles as blind sheep. But I digress. Personally I can't wait to meet a self-entitled slut and tell her she's ruining it for those of us who are just trying to get ahead in life by normal means.

But after reading your other post I see there will be no reasoning with you. You're an extremist and you obviously have some reason to be, because your anger bleeds through. I'd say I hope you find peace, but I'm not sure you even want that.

Why do you call yourself a feminist if you believe in equality? And do you believe in equality of OPPORTUNITY or equality of OUTCOME? Anybody with a conscience believes in equality of opportunity; feminism believes in equality of outcome, regardless of ability, effort or choices. That means the those who can do, support those who can't do or won't do.

It has been decades since any vocal feminist organization has advocated for equal treatment of men and women. Men are no longer allowed to compete with women on a level playing field. If you want stats, look around. The wage gap has now reversed: among single, childless males and females (in other words: on a level playing field) women now out-earn men.

If you think feminism wants legal equality between the sexes, you're quite deluded; you have swallowed whole the UNSUBSTANTIATED and frequently debunked myths that feminism has sold you.

Go ahead. Offer me a specific issue where women do not have a legal advantage over men.

And funny you should assume I'm angry. I'm not; I am thrilled to have discovered a community of people who are no longer blinded by the status quo. I've known for years there was something fundamentally rotten between the sexes, the mass societal presumption that it's all men's fault, never quite made sense. Then finally someone suggested to me that maybe the problem is feminism. Not women per se, but feminism. EVERYTHING has made sense since then. EVERYTHING. Divorce, promiscuity, neglected children, vitriolic misandry, crap that passes for education, even professional incompetence. I'm not angry, I'm giddy and gleeful because I'm finally free. I'm no longer trying to live a lie.

No comments allowed on your post? No arguments with facts? Just a little amateur psychoanalyzing and some shaming language?

That's what I expected from a feminist, especially the kind who is too deluded or dishonest to admit that equality is anathema to feminism. You'd be wise to stay in your own little fantasy world, dearie, where everybody congratulates you and agrees with you because you have boobies and Grrrl Power.

There is a wealth of amazing, very valid points in this article. Unfortunately its masked behind a lot of harsh words and hate. If you could rewrite this removing the heavy bias and adding a bit more of a logical academic type approach, you'd have a solid piece of literary work worth reading by even the most esteemed sociologists.

It's already been done politely, by many people, and frankly I would prefer a more civilized approach. However, the audience I am addressing is feral; most modern young women see politeness as a weakness, or as a useful tool at best. They also have not learned to discern fact from opinion, so they wouldn't believe it anyway. By speaking their own language, I might actually reach a few of them.

A nicer version might be a worthwhile intellectual exercise, but it would have little or no impact.

I do appreciate your opinion though, and if I have time, I just might attempt a rewrite. Thanks.

I'd love to copy this without the U.S. Marine part because i'm not in the US So I could print several copies, so that I could "drop" a few in strategic locations around a nearby college and school campus.

Been There, Done That, Got The T-Shirt. Sigh ... everything you wrote is true, to a greater or lesser degree, of American women today. The one I married punched out two kids and then declared herself "done" for all intents and purposes. The kids were both girls, though, so despite some strong efforts on my part, I see both of them going down this same path. The Clue Train is going to run completely over them and they refuse to see it coming.

This post is flawed only in the essence that you're blaming the women for kicking out the men who leave because they want to. The children raised by single mothers not because mom's standards are too high but because they weren't high enough. If those single moms had perhaps picked better men... they wouldn't be alone.

So let's set a few things straight mom. I'm a college educated small business owner who is head over heels in love with my best friend and business partner. He is an honorable, respectful man, who uplifts me and is always in my corner. He is charismatic, brilliant, attractive and cares for me through all my faults. I met him because I have high standards. I met him because I am strong and powerful. I met him because I waited for someone better than the last one. My standards aren't very high either, as a woman I want to be respected, I want to be intellectually stimulated as well as physically, I will not tolerate abuse of any form and I don't care if a man is rich, he just needs ambition. Unfortunately in my age bracket (I am 24) I had to start dating a man 7 years older than myself to even find what I need in a partner. Someone who actually behaves like an adult. Now I will say since your son was in the military he's probably got a better head on his shoulders than most men who are 20 but 20 year old males are usually barely out of puberty and still trying to get laid at any and all occasion.

Young men these days are rude, overly aggressive, and often perverse in seeking out females. Everyday I walk through my town men make disgusting comments to me about my body. When I go to the gym they follow me around. At my job I've had men attempt to pick me up while their wives were 4 feet away. This is so common that I find any man walking up to me to be threatening after living in this city for a few years. I don't go to bars because I don't want men trying to dry hump me on the dance floor. There are slim pickings when it comes to ambition these days as well. Many men in my community seemed to have finished high school and are just... done trying to be better. (I'm not talking about skilled workers, I've known some seriously talented auto repairmen who made quite a lot of money). It's not the paycheck that deters me, it's the lack of interest in doing anything other than working at Whole Foods as a cashier. I did try it though, dating people who didn't have my level of ambition and it ended because I was heading up and they were stagnant. There are plenty of men for women like me though, and just as many women who lack ambition and can work the check out line too.

It is NOT just the state of women but... you have a point in your post about some things. The brilliant wonderful man I love? While I know he cares for me and he's not leaving soon, I also know that he is hesitant to jump in when it comes to this relationship and I know it's because he had a horrible time with the last person he committed to who was the kind of woman you mentioned here, only she was nearly 40. There ARE many hateful women who are dealing with some serious internal issues and take it out on not just their men but the world. You also forget that some women are hard and unyielding because their lives have also been hard and unyielding. Their tough exteriors hide a pain built up through decades.

For the women who want to control men, instead of stand beside them as an equal? This post will do nothing but put them on defense. It's a multi-faceted problem that has nothing to do with feminism. I believe that women have the right to go after big goals and we shouldn't have to be held back because we're the fairer sex. That doesn't mean my goal is to emasculate or crush a man in my quest for power. I want my man to be JUST as powerful as I am, if not more. I want him to be just as ambitious, if not more.

I hope you get that I'm just saying that there are many MANY brilliant, dedicated, upright and honest women out there who are feminists and aren't trying to ruin men's lives but make sure our own lives are fulfilling and long lasting with the people we love and care for. It's a hard line to walk but it's thoroughly possible and the men who love us understand that we can be both tough and loving.

Brittany,Thanks for your comment. I suspect you are a NAWALT. http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com/2012/09/nawalt.htmlDo you realize though, that your objections to my post actually substantiate it beautifully?You said: “If those single moms had perhaps picked better men... they wouldn't be alone.” Who are these women who pick lousy men when good men are available? They are deluded Princess wannabes who believed that they could turn that Bad Boy into Princes. Then they blame the Bad Boys for not following the script. The family court system encourages and assists them in this endeavor. Who taught them that? Feminism. Feminism tells girls that they can “do anything,” and anyone who tells them otherwise is a misogynist. The reality is, a woman has an obligation to her offspring (and to her own future happiness) to choose her partner wisely. However thanks to feminism’s mandated redistribution of wealth, women who choose UNwisely, don’t suffer the true consequences – they and their children don’t starve. Sure, their feelings might be hurt, and they might be poorer than they had wished, and their children will have a radically increased chance of ending up mentally ill/unable to be productive/in prison, but one of the many delusions promoted by feminism, is that any old grrrl can overcome such hardships because she can do ANYTHING.You said: “Unfortunately in my age bracket (I am 24) I had to start dating a man 7 years older than myself to even find what I need in a partner.”NO KIDDING! Go read this post and watch this video. Pay attention to the part near the end where the class notes how their productivity/ambition decreased after just ONE DAY of “discrimination.”http://www.avoiceformen.com/miscellaneous/proxy-violence/These unambitious and crude men you meet, have been discriminated against throughout their entire lives. The VERY BEST of them will overcome that handicap in their late 20’s; many will never overcome it. Let me guess. Your SO is confident in his masculinity, right? Not cocky and reckless, not rebellious and reactionary, confident. Look around you. Where are his role models? Who teaches young boys and men that masculinity and masculine leadership (trust me, the two are inseparable) is GOOD? Nobody. According to feminism, men are good for sexual recreation, sperm donation, building bridges, and dying in battle. In every other endeavor, they are expected to rein in their masculine leadership and allow the ladies to run the show. I have no idea how any of them manage to function under this handicap; their hands are tied behind their backs, yet they are pilloried for not excelling. And those who do excel, can have everything taken away in a moment, according to the whims of any woman they know.

...continued:You said: “Young men these days are rude, overly aggressive, and often perverse in seeking out females.”Yup. That’s the testosterone speaking. Feminism tries to pretend it can contradict biology, but it can’t, can it? Men will be men, and look at the mess we have made by not teaching them to channel their masculinity in a productive manner. Because remember, throughout their entire lives they have been taught that there IS NO productive use for masculinity – masculinity must be bad because masculine behaviors are punished starting in pre-school. Again, who are their role models? Thugs, Playas, and feminist approved pussy-whipped beta-providers.You said: “There ARE many hateful women who are dealing with some serious internal issues and take it out on not just their men but the world.” Yes there are, and feminism encourages them to be hateful, because it lets them get away with it by shaming men into supporting them anyway. And two generations into mass fatherlessness, millions of young women AND men never learned not to be hateful. (Of course, the young men get punished for it anyway.)The bottom line is that feminism deeply corrupts female nature. Hypergamy, which is necessary to species survival, is deeply ingrained in the human female’s psyche. In a world full of surplus resources, with laws that channel those resources toward women (and encourages them to use them for themselves, rather than for their children) hypergamy results in mass depravity on the part of women.You said: “For the women who want to control men, instead of stand beside them as an equal? This post will do nothing but put them on defense.” I’m not trying to “instruct” the willfully ineducable. I’m just telling them WHY they’re miserable and alone in their ignorance. They think men are to blame; I’m telling them the truth.

Delusion Damage led me to a copy of this post on Trigger Alert, who cited you. You are so going on my blogroll, and I will plagiarize large portions of this post myself. And I wish I could telepathically beam this into the mind of every woman I date. You've given me the words to describe what so annoys me about them. Thank you!

Great post. In Poland where live we love parroting west and it is going the same way.Funny thing about feminist in Poland. They dont use male/female or man/woman but woman/male(this in polish stand for sex description of animals not human being) but there abut equality.Plus Listened guy while i was int the city. Guy to hiss buddies- Well I play a student from Erasmus I am from Island, we have all English classes anyway. They are all wet because I am from WEST.Guy is just manipulator and they are just stupid cunts but...

What about Japan grass eaters? I thing it going to be worst before situation improve. Japan seems further in the collapse.

I know you've gotten tons of positive re-inforcement already, but it can't be stated enough how wonderful it is to hear this from someone on the other side. It's just an absolutely fantastic breath of fresh air, and cheers to you for saying all of this and trying to help out any woman who might read it with an open mind.

To those who keep bringing up the slut 'double-standard' where it's 'okay' for your son to sleep around but not for the girls. What you fail to realize is that there was a time when BOTH genders valued chastity in their potential life partners. The difference is, men never stopped valuing chaste women. WOMEN are the ones who stopped placing any value on potential male fidelity. Women DO NOT reward the chaste man, in fact they often ridicule him.

Ladies, that is on YOU. Guys never changed. Women need to sort that out with themselves instead of blaming the 'patriarchy' or whatever for a double standard that only exists because they created it.

Yeah sure. I'll take your word for it. BTW, you didn't happen to read read the dozens of comments here from straight men who think otherwise, did you? Gosh, one might think you disagree with the sentiments in this post! It's not "mother issues" and it's not homosexuality. It's how women have been taught to behave, and why would any self respecting man want any part of it?

Thanks for being the millionth person to imply that I think like a man, but did you by chance peruse my archives? Perhaps you think this entire blog is an elaborate ruse, and the Menopause posts are clever little decoys.

Thanks so much for writing this. I don't agree with a word of it but I find it empowering. I believe your son is one of the "Good Ones". I say that with absolutely no snark whatsoever. Hearing the mother of a "Good One" speak so openly with contempt for what she considers to be "most" women makes me firmer in my resolve to never marry. More power to your son. I begrudge him and you nothing. I hope he finds a mate who meets your approval and I hope he celebrates a diamond anniversary with that woman. I truly mean that. I just rest more easily knowing that I missed nothing but resolving to stay single and let the "Good Ones" get away. Please write another article detailing what type of woman you hope your son finds. I bet I'd find that one empowering too.

I hope he finds a woman who meets with HIS approval. I don't know exactly what that is, but I have a pretty good idea what it isn't. All I want is for him to be happy in a secure relationship. Or happy without a relationship, whatever floats his boat.

Females who spend their 20's and early 30's chasing hedonistic sex and not appreciating men should not be surprised if they wind up old and alone with no man to love them. That appears to be your premise.

But there is a flip side that you are not telling. Females who stay virginal until marriage, who put husband and family first and who are loving and supportive are in no way insulated from being disrespected by men or left by men. I don't believe Molly Petreaus was a sleep-around when she was young. I don't believe Jackie Kennedy was a sleep-around. Hillary Clinton, in her biography anyway, claimed to be a virgin when she married Bill. And she certainly supported him and his career. Princess Diana, in her biography, claimed to be a virgin and totally in love with Prince Charles when she married him. All of these women got cheated on by their husbands.

The flip side of that is that I know men who married the-girl-next-door virgins from their church and those women ended up being women that those men regretted marrying.

So a female could stay chaste, be appreciative and supportive and STILL wind up a hurt, bitter, divorcee. And men could marry a virginal, never-slept-around girl and still wind up with shrew. That train wrecks both ways.

Since most of this article was your opinion I'm not going to argue with you on the face of what you wrote. But I do want to bring up one factual point.

You say women don't work as hard as men in the same job. Okay,let me just take you at your word. You are the one with the son who was in the military so I bet he saw a bit of that and reported it to you. I've always worked in offices where there was a sales staff. Pay was directly related to how much money an employee produced in sales, regardless of gender. So if a woman was getting paid as much as a man, she was working hard enough to bring in the same amount in sales as the man did. But let us say I'm full of baloney and you are absolutely right. So what? Women don't get paid as much as men. They get paid 70 cents on the dollar. So if you are correct and women are not working as hard as men it is reflected in their pay.

"So if you are correct and women are not working as hard as men it is reflected in their pay."That's not the way most women see it. Most women see the "pay gap" as an inequity that must be corrected, not by women working more or men working less, but by women being paid the same for doing less work. If you doubt me, watch the TV news for half an hour.

I don't believe I painted men as saints who never cheat. What I did was point out that even though any marriage can end for any reason, it is MEN who take the greatest risk, and MEN who bear the greatest cost. A betrayed woman gets her heart broken, then she gets cash and prizes from her ex and/or from the government (OUR hard earned money.) A betrayed man gets his heart broken, then he PAYS cash and prizes, and/or maybe goes to jail courtesy of the family courts. Furthermore, unless he's in the "lucky" 10%, he loses his children, to whatever degree his ex decides.

It's not about sexual purity, it's about character. Women face very few consequences for choosing poor quality men. Men on the other hand, face phenomenal consequences for choosing poor quality women. And feminism has raised two whole generations of poor quality women.

"Men who take the greatest risks and men who pay the greatest costs." I am surgically sterilized because I knew from a very young age that I did not want to be a parent, especially not a single parent. The divorce rate in the African-American community is 69%. But it was high long before feminism only it wasn't called divorce, just family disolution. Forgive my digression.

Being separated from one's children is heartbreaking, to be sure. But raising children by oneself is A LOT of work. I don't even take on weekend babysitting stints with my nieces and nephews without thoughtful consideration. I believe that women who initiate divorce are taking the risk that they are going to be stuck raising kids alone and that, to me, IS a risk. Maybe I am sensitive to it because of the fact that I never wanted kids. Maybe that makes me think of raising kids alone as a nightmare scenario. Plus there is a stigma attached to the Black Single Mom. She is a lazy welfare queen, blah, blah, blah. YOUR article wasn't going in a direction that I read to be racializing the issue but the racialization of the "Single Mom" stereotype is real. So to me the burden and the stigma of raising kids alone is a risk. As for the cash and prizes, if that were so then being raised in a woman headed household would not correlate so strongly with being a child who lives in poverty.

"Women face few consequences for choosing poor quality men." Oh yes they do. It's called genes. Be it impulse control, alcoholism, depression, anger management. The very children the woman has to raise on her own and depend on to look after her when she is old are the ones who are going to exhibit the genes that she helped give them by choosing a "poor quality man". As you stated, selfish, hedonistic women are RAISED that way. Most character flaws that make a male a "poor quality" male are in his genes and get passed right along to the kids.

"But raising children by oneself is A LOT of work." Yet millions of women choose it, in part because feminism has told them that it's awesome and makes them heroic, and they have "grrl power" to help them overcome the obstacles. This also answers your statement: " As for the cash and prizes, if that were so then being raised in a woman headed household would not correlate so strongly with being a child who lives in poverty." If she can't, or doesn't want to, do it on her own, the sidewalk is littered with Prince Charmings and she can take one home any time she feels like it. Grrlz have options, you know! Additionally, that "poverty" is relative, and a whole bunch of its harm is not from lack of money, it's from lack of fathers. How poor would those women be without child support or government assistance? How many women would risk pregnancy, or get divorced (CHOOSING single motherhood) If it meant they (and their children) would literally starve or die of exposure? It is feminist laws and feminist myths that incentivize single motherhood, by removing or mitigating its consequences.

I completely disagree with your last statement. Bad character is both learned and inherited in both sexes. It is however, punished and therefore restrained in men, and encouraged in women. So in practice you might actually be right - this world may be far more full of nasty women who could have been decent, than of such men. For a man to be outwardly nasty in this social climate, he has to genuinely not give a shit about how he will be punished for it. Thanks again to anti-male-ism.

And any woman who wants her children to care for her when she's old, would be wise not to earn their contempt by depriving them of a father.

"As for the cash and prizes, if that were so then being raised in a woman headed household would not correlate so strongly with being a child who lives in poverty."First, that "poverty" is relative. How many women would risk single motherhood if there were no child support or government assistance to keep them (and their children) from starving in the streets?

Second, it is not MATERIAL poverty that harms children, it is the EMOTIONAL poverty caused by being raised by an overwhelmed (and likely delusional) single parent.

Third, it's the lies told by feminists that encourage women to CHOOSE what ends up being poverty. You have Grrl Power!!! You can overcome the obstacles and raise happy productive children!!! You don't need a man!!! You can have any career you want!!! And if you decide you'd prefer to have a man support you, the sidewalks are simply littered with either Frogs for you to catch and transform into Prince Charmings!!! And if you're desperate (ugly, poor, fat) said sidewalks are littered with lonely basement dwellers who will grovel in gratitude to you if you so much as give them the time of day!!!

Feminism removes or mitigates the consequences to women, for being reckless and amoral.

I also disagree with your assertion that bad character is genetic to a greater degree in men than in women. Character is both learned and inherited in both sexes. As a result of feminism however, you may be right in a way: Bad behavior in women is encouraged by society, so this world is jam packed with nasty women who once had the potential to be decent. Bad behavior in men is punished (and therefore suppressed) by society, so it's possible that any man who is blatantly nasty, really and truly DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT. Perhaps in our feminist society, "bad" men were born bad, and "bad" women were born "good" and learned to be "bad."

Of course there is the irrefutable fact that women are dumb enough to keep having sex with these "bad" men. Wonder why that is. Oh yeah! It's exciting, and someone else will foot the bill!

Additionally, any woman who wants her children to care for her when she is old, should seriously consider NOT damaging their psyches or earning their contempt by intentionally depriving them of their fathers. Of course that would mean becoming the sort of women that decent men want to marry, and then staying married to those decent men. But feminism says, "Don't you dare betray us grrlz!"

I agree with your main points here Can I just ask a few questions, one writer to another, though? Who is your audience for this piece? What is your purpose? Who are you trying to convince? If convincing is indeed your motive? I ask because if you are trying to persuade or convince women who are either neutral, or more likely opposed, to what you have to say, did you use the most effective wording and technique? You seem hostile, if not combative, both in the tone of your article and your responses. Are you just an angry person?Again, I am not criticizing the content of your post, just the delivery.

Interesting questions. I appreciate your criticism of my delivery, and you make a valid point.

Most of my readers are men, and many of them agree with me on these issues. I'm not a particularly angry person, but I certainly lack patience, and I'm very fearful about the future in store for my son. Also, I'm currently angry about the lies society has been telling me throughout my life. My present level of emotion is waaaay out of character for me.

I have never really identified with the way most women think, and I discovered the Manosphere about a year ago; as calm and rational as I try to be in discussions on other blogs, I'm still in the "WTF is WRONG with these people? Can't they see the connections???" phase of swallowing the Red Pill. In other words, I'm still very emotional about these issues. Here on my own blog is where I feel free to cut loose and get belligerent. People who know me In Real Life, are consistently stunned to discover this sarcastic bitchy side of "sweet," "compassionate," "quiet," "accommodating" Suz.

(I came to this "place" indirectly via "civil liberty" and 2nd amendment blogs. And incidentally, you'd laugh if you saw my Facebook page. Most of my FB friends are family and long-time personal friends, several of whom have very liberal viewpoints. I'm a moderate independent who believes that the Constitution should be our guide when we disagree, so I have a lot in common with both my liberal and conservative friends.)

My audience is anyone who's willing to look at a genuinely independent point of view, and consider that it might hold some truth. This post is more of a rant than an argument, although I can argue the points within it (And I will.) This blog is one of the few places where I don't have to moderate myself in order to curry favor and not offend, and I'm free to explore my thoughts, so at the moment I don't really care if I convince anyone or not.

However, I'm doing research for a book on this subject. I will certainly tone down my language and my approach for that. When I set out to "prove" my themes, I will do so calmly, with evidence, and I will consider all kinds of mitigating variables. I know full well that I can "attract more flies with honey than with vinegar." If I get around to publishing a book instead of a rant, nobody will be able to discredit my work by accusing me of being angry or bitter, like in several comments here.

I did want to ask you something about what you wrote: " And you, and your church, and your government can’t cajole them or shame them into giving a shit."

Most mainstream churches are telling women to stay chaste, put family and husband first and respect the authority of husband's and fathers. To what churches are you referring when you call church's out?

I refer to the vast majority of modern churches in which girls are raised to believe that God will provide them with a "perfect" man, and then reinforce that belief with marriage counselling that consistently blames husbands for not "leading" their wives precisely where and how they are instructed by their "Daughters of the King" wives.

When you are writing for your book I'd like to make a suggestion. Please, in the prologue, spell out exactly for whom you are writing. The pressures on the African-American family/marriage in the last 50 years are not the same as the ones in the majority population. For example, I had to stop myself from taking offense in the overall at your suggestion that women feminism has pushed men out of the workplace to make place for women who don't work as hard. Black women have always worked as hard as men, in the cotton fields as share croppers, in the house as domestics while their men were landscapers and drivers and even today. Also the prison industrial complex plays a huge role in why Black women who wish to be wives may have a hard time finding husbands. I think it plays more of a role than Black women's embrace of feminism.

I wish I had the knowledge to pursue the racial aspects. I will say that after men and children, black women are hurt by feminism more than any other group. Traditionally, black women HAVE worked as hard as black men, due to poverty, but these days millions of black women's jobs are makework created by the government, rather than productive work. That's haw feminism pacifies black women while unjustly jailing black men (and keeping those men "unnecessary' and superfluous.)

Ironically, many white men are now rebelling against feminism because they have noticed that the "white family" is going down the same sewer which has been swallowing the "black family" for generations.

Race makes the entire issue more complex and deeper, and I lack the knowledge to do it justice.

Well Ms. Suz, I wish you good luck with your book. Like I said, I don't agree with most of what you wrote but I'm glad you wrote it because it clarifies my thinking on why I made the right choice (FOR MYSELF ALONE) to A)Not become a wife B) Not become a mother. If I had fit in the box thinkers like you have created for women-who-wish-to-be-married-and-stay-married my soul would not fit in the box with me. I think it is important for young women to read books like "The Surrendered Wife" and books like the one based on prefaces like yours. Young women need to realize what young men "of quality" are looking for so that they can make a decision about whether or not they want to mold themselves to that box. I AM NOT saying the box is bad. I'm just saying that A) Not every woman can fit in it and be happy. B)Not every young woman understands that there even IS a box. Thus blog posts like yours are of great value.

Once a young woman understands what is required to be the wife of a "Good one" she can start actually attempting to be that woman OR she can say "You know what, I'm gonna develop my church relationships, my career, my community relationships and fill my life that way instead of trying to fill my life with wifedom or motherhood because I am CLEARLY not cut out to fit in that box."

I think you are in one sense correct. If young women have sex with "hot" guys just for the hookup and don't give "nice guys" the time of day or give nice guys all kinds of time of day but in emasculating ways, then those young women can not complain about being alone when they are older. If young women who are all about the hookup read your book first they can get clue and make a choice to stop putting hedonism first, or they can get a clue to keep on pursuing liberated love and just know they will never be wed.

For me personally, the daughters of my friends that are in their 20's and 30's are not doing that kind of complaining and are not hooking up like it is going out of style. The"party girls" I know are grown women who are divorced, make their own money, have children who are out of the house and have no intention of marrying again. So they may be all about the hookup but they are not trying to be married or tied down in any way so the hookup is not hurting their chances of being in a long term relationship because they don't want one.

If your book is as provocative as your post it will spark much discussion about cultural issues and gender. That can't be a bad thing.

Great post - as I watch my son (he's 19) and his peers interact with young women I'm struck by how different it is from when I was his age. Girls are just one of a number of things that the young men choose to spend their time on - not the primary focus as it was in my time.

It seems that feminism has simply made young women less valuable to young men.